Friday Night Lights

The season finale was somewhat weak, focused too much tying up plot lines and was a bit stiff. Also, from a small sample, it seems the show overdoes the remarkable finishes, from the first episode on. OTOH, those girls/women are both hot and tough (and scary!).

Quick Thoughts

Watching the beginning episodes of Friday Night Lights: very good. The same sex marriage ruling leads to tedious discussions, raising the same issues over and over. I think even money maybe the 9CA rules more narrowly. Who knew there were new pennies? No me!

63-37

That's pretty close historically speaking. If we were going to have someone somewhat controversial and who would get only a handful of Republican votes, I do wish it was someone else. But, I don't make the call. Congrats, Justice Kagan. [Well, now "Justice."]

Bliss x 2

And Also: I'm proud of my city for being the face of reason regarding an Islamic community center planned for a mile or two away from Ground Zero. The insanity and bigotry from usual suspects and one sad one shows the alternative path.

Finding Bliss (like the earlier Amy's Orgasm, if a bit more explicit) is at its heart sentimental film dealing with sexual matters. It stars Leelee Sobieski* as a straitlaced editor who takes a job editing porn movies to get a chance to make her own more "straight" film. She falls for the director while having to use porn actors in her own film. Though a bit weak at parts, it is overall an amusing and charming film. It is a bit different and cares for its characters. Sadly, this is a bit unusual.

Bliss is a quite different type of film, concerning a teenage Turkish village girl who was raped, and destined to be a victim of an honor killing. But, her cousin, a newly returned solider from fighting Kurdish rebels (though as I recall, who he was fighting was not really addressed), cannot do the job. They meet up with a professor on a ship, who is running away from his old life as well. The cousin falls in love with the girl, saves her from the people sent to finish her off and the assumed holy man who raped her is dealt with by her father, after the ex-solider (his son) could not do the job.

It is a beautiful film to look at (including the opening scene involving her being found at the sea) and the journey the cousins take (focusing mainly on the girl) is pretty well done. I thought the ending a bit too tied up in a bow (don't like how so many films deal with evil by just killing the person off, as if that is how it is done) and the two men are somewhat thinly drawn. The movie is best when focusing on the girl, Meryem. It is a flawed but special film for certain aspects.

It is based on an international bestseller, which is much more complex. We see things through each of the three characters (and a bit from a few others), who are given bigger back stories. The basics for most of it is fairly similar, but then it goes down a different path, one more complex and in my opinion more rewarding. The cousins do not fall in love, though there is some implication that Cemal (her cousin) has fallen in love with her. No reference of the rapist being killed or him going back to the village. Meryem finds "bliss" in a small town, finally feeling that God truly loves her.

The film in other words is something of a more conventional account. Both are worth one's time, underlining that you can watch a film and read a book, getting something from both. I liked the book better, though this is not always true. The film version of Legally Blonde, for instance, was better than the book.

---

* She looks and sounds like a young Helen Hunt, but unfortunately, tends to be pretty stiff in films. She is however rather good here, looking pretty sexy at spots too.

Prop 8 Ruling

The core of the Prop 8 ruling is fairly standard by now, since state judges have repeatedly decided that the fundamental right to marriage cannot be denied to same sex couples. The Massachusetts DOMA ruling showed that this includes federal district judges as well. The most impressive part of this ruling is the facts, which are quite detailed, quite important since they are presumed true on appeal. A taste:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

The Bush v. Gore twins had a field day here since the other side basically didn't put on a factual case, resting on the law. Citing forty year summary judgments like Baker v. Nelson, which can be disposed of by any number of means (e.g., Prop 8 is different from some ancient marriage law), is not really a good alternative. Bowers v. Hardwick did not rest on the summary judgment on sodomy a decade before, did it? The merits were addressed. And, when they are here, it's an epic fail for the discrimination side. And, much changed since then, including as a matter of Supreme Court precedent.

Orin Kerr, who still can be a bit of an ass at times, cites the core statement of law:

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses;they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage, Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their union is “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” Griswold, 381 US at 486. Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition.

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

Various others analyze the opinion, such as here, but again, some nice turn of analysis or not,* the basics are fairly familiar by now. This can be applied to New York without much trouble. I'm a bit troubled by this, though find the basic logic great, since it seems going it slow is the best path here. The key gay/lesbian litigation groups tended to agree. The decision will be stayed and be left to the court of appeals (or beyond). Would not a narrower ruling based on Prop 8 and its animus, animus in a state that already broadly recognized same sex rights via domestic partnerships (cf. the rationality of the state interests in some state where this does not exist) make some sense? At least, as a lesser reason for judgment?

[Reading Slate's account, the findings of facts can to a degree be tied this to this state's practices, such as encouraging same sex adoption. But, same sex adoption is allowed and "promoted" in some way nearly in every state. The arguments applicable across the board would do the job. And, the lack of a factual case by the other side is compelling. Rachel Maddow noted how the ruling in effect ridiculed the two witnesses put up there by the defense. But, the findings of law are written quite broadly, leading to more knowledgeable of the subject and supportive of equality wary. Others are supportive, but again, don't take "California only" from the ruling. With reason, I think.]

But, the duo asked for this and the defense case was so weak, that it is not too surprising that this is the result. To be continued. One day, however, this will truly be the law of the land:

Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

It is just a matter of how long.

[This is but a part of a journey as the ACLU noted today:

Today's ruling shows that we can stop extremist forces who want to impose their own narrow view of morality on the rest of us.

But we must do more than that. We must demonstrate that there is a national consensus in support of marriage and other relationship protections for same-sex couples in states across the country. Every step forward will make it harder for the Supreme Court to rule that Prop 8 and similar exclusions from marriage are consistent with the Constitution.

That's why it's so essential to win more victories as critical same-sex marriage bills and relationships lawsuits are decided in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Montana and elsewhere. The ACLU is centrally involved in each of these efforts—and we need you to stand with us.

This is how the definition of marriage truly develops and how Lawrence v. Texas determined "liberty" includes same sex relationships.]

---

* The TPM link links things to both race and gender, the former underlining how marriage is a fundamental right, a privilege or immunity of citizenship secured by the Fourteenth Amendment:

He also notes that slaves were unable to marry.

"The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained," he wrote.

Walker also noted that past marriage inequalities have included the prohibition of interracial marriage and coverture, in which a woman's identity is subsumed by her husband's.

The coverture part underlines how much the institution of "marriage" changed over the years, equality eventually being understood to cover the new understandings.

Calmly Promoting Error

Glenn Greenwald once lashed out at Orin Kerr (also assistant to Sen. Cornyn) for calmly supporting executive tyranny and ridiculing a federal judge who rejected it. Some were insulted. See also, this citation calmly noting an "interesting" slanted review (as I note).

Republican Attempt to Amend Constitution Again: Citizenship Edition

[And Also: More on how this is largely a distraction here. Overall, it is useful to address the issue to reaffirm the basic principles of citizenship and rights that are being challenged or disrespected. As with torture and so on, cheapening such things need not require amendments to the Constitution. See also, Mourad's comments here. Overall, even if they aren't citizens, they would constitutionally and in practice have various protections and benefits as "persons." But, posturing is not always based on such details.]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Though they might be pulling back some, Republicans are trotting out the same idea brought out back in 1996: suggesting that children born in the United States of undocumented immigrants are not really U.S. citizens. Some appeal to original intent and/or fear of "anchor babies" or "jackpot babies" (the babies tie the aliens here while providing various benefits) or "birth tourism" (coming here just for citizenship; a few previously suggested some terrorist sorts do the same -- Manchurian Candidates?). Some ugliness is shown (the terms alone are pretty ugly); connections to the "birther" crowd is easily imagined.

Supreme Court precedent is on the side of those who argue that (with a few exceptions) those born here are citizens of the United States (and state citizens based on residency). A 1960s ruling (involving protection from being stripped of citizenship involuntarily) summarized a 1898 one, involving the group many were concerned in the day, so much that racist barriers were placed on the alien. parents ever becoming citizens:

The issues in that case were whether a person born in the United States to Chinese aliens was a citizen of the United States and whether, nevertheless, he could be excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act, 22 Stat. 58. The Court first held that, within the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States, and then pointed out that, though he might "renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of . . . any other country," he had never done so. ....

Because the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the expatriation proposals which preceded and followed it, like most other legislative history, contains many statements from which conflicting inferences can be drawn, our holding might be unwarranted if it rested entirely or principally upon that legislative history. But it does not. Our holding, we think, is the only one that can stand in view of the language and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and our construction of that Amendment, we believe, comports more nearly than [a more restrictive ruling] with the principles of liberty and equal justice to all that the entire Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to guarantee.

The latter paragraph provides a warning to those who want to take some statements from 1868 to settle upon an "original meaning" that is not compelled by the text or the overall meaning of the amendment using various criteria, including an appeal to history. Basically, those living here -- even undocumented -- are under the jurisdiction of the U.S., so the protections (including citizenship by birth) are supplied. As noted by Plyer v. Doe (public schools):

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

The term "jurisdiction" was specifically concerned with Native Americans (later dealt with by statute), enemy aliens and diplomatic personnel. A nation of immigrants is not the best place to rest citizenship on the legality of the residency of the parents, a matter mostly not a concern in 1868. There were various people in effect "illegal" even then -- enemy aliens, for instance, or paupers or the diseased in certain states though federal restrictions as a whole came later. If anything, this might imply the original meaning was to have a very liberal rule, immigration generally open. Anyways, into the 1980s, the Supreme Court assumed that the children of even those that could be deported (Mexicans here) that were born in the U.S. are "citizens" of the United States. The Wong Kim case argued that this role was the ancient English practice:

every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born

The immediate purpose of the rule was to overrule Dred Scott v. Sandford, which argued that even free blacks -- even if born in states that recognized them as state citizens -- were not intended to be included as U.S. citizens. Therefore, they were not able to sue or be sued in federal court. They also in effect were citizens of no country. The children of undocumented aliens are allegedly citizens of a foreign country, since they are not totally connected to this one. See also, the idea that somehow Obama is partially connected to another country because of his father's foreign citizenship. But, Wong Kim Ark involved parents loyal to a foreign sovereign; the child born here was still deemed a citizen. The legality of the parents' residency wasn't the basis of the ruling either. Born in U.S. jurisdiction, the U.S. sets the rules.

And, the racial implications of the proposed policy underlines the connection to Dred Scott. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States ("Citizenship") summarizes the value of the birth place rule:

[It] helped clarify property rights; it promoted immigration; it avoided jurisdictional conflicts; and it eased fears of massive expatriation during wartime.

Any "anchor" was in some way always there as was other things such as jobs, additional liberties and other family members living there. Relying on rules of other countries is also no way to determine citizenship of people born here. Marisa Tomei is recognized as a citizen of Italy, does that mean she is not really an American citizen? If a citizen does not follow their obligations, they can be penalized. And, overall, are undocumented immigrants the only concern here? "Birth tourism" suggests legal temporary residents also are a concern. Is citizenship to be left to the intent of the mother? Some artificial time limit is supposed to be implied or something?

Guests on Keith Olbermann earlier tonight provided a concerning alternative: the situation in Germany, where foreign workers are given work permits, but their children are not considered citizens, even when born there. A type of "people without a country" form, those who only know Germany, but are not considered citizens to that country. The racial/nationalist implications are fairly easy to imagine as are the resulting problems and conflicts. Is this what we want in this country, putting aside that it runs against text, history, doctrine and pragmatic principle? Even if there is an opening there, why should we seek it out?

It's a bad idea, more of a wedge issue than a credible idea. As with flag burning, hurt the gays to "protect marriage," violate privacy and equality to favor one religious/moral view of life and so forth, Republican amendment ideas [changing the "natural born citizen" rule for Presidents is an exception] tend to be stupid.

TV Quickies

Finished up the Doc Martin episodes - more scheduled to be filmed, but they ended fairly well with a lull in the middle of S4. Another case of "quickly pregnant" for plot reasons. His receptionist/assistant grew on me; like Mark better, but Officer Joe also got better.

Wait Until Next Year?

No trading deadline news and Perez is out there giving up runs again. More of the same:

The Mets have won only one of their last nine series, and the loss kept them tied for third place in the division with the Florida Marlins.

Put aside trouble with the Ds; they aren't even winning at home now.

TV Quickies

Pretty good Lifetime dramas tonight. The third set of William and Mary episodes again had a lot of bad stuff around the two leads (probably too much), including a really bad thing that was handled well. When horror comes, it has to be earned, and it was here.

Sen. Gillibrand (Babe-NY)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand aka "Supermom," number 3 on The Hill's Beautiful People list, top among actual members of Congress. She's cute, but not sure how she beats six and ten. Pic from here. She's also not a a bad senator either.

Ginsburg Goes the Quiet Tough Route Again

Good and pretty combative (with nod to Kagan hearings) speech by Ginsburg on international law. Will she and Breyer be more combative now that Stevens is gone? Friday Nights Lights was pretty good, if of the waiting for the other shoe to drop variety, tonight.

Arizona Immigration Law A Whole CAN of Worms (Federal Power Edition)

A federal judge has put the infamous Arizona immigration law on hold in various respects pursuant to a lawsuit brought forth by the federal government on pre-emption grounds. The link allows you to read the decision as well as some interesting comments on the general subject. Dilan Esper in particular has some interesting things to say:

What supporters of the law are really arguing is “if the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws, including for sensitive reasons of foreign policy, the Constitution permits the states to step in and override the federal enforcement choices rather than restricting the remedy to impeachment of the President or removal via the electoral process”. And there’s no reason to think that THIS is the case.

Overall, precedent has determined that foreign policy (and immigration as it fits in or by itself) is the role of the federal government, though states can get involved in various cases when it affects local interests or when given discretion to do so by the feds. As bhaal notes, this includes the power of the executive to establish certain policy decisions, decisions that might not be necessarily compelled by federal law. All the same, states cannot on their own choose to follow what they deem the "better" policy:

It’s stunning that anyone is attempting to claim the Supremacy clause only concerns ‘law’ and not ‘policy’. The job of executing the law is given to the President — Art II §2. Without someone putting it into effect a law is just a piece of paper or letters on a screen. If the Supremacy clause did apply only to the law in theory or States were free to interpret it themselves then any State could apply their own interpretation of it, claim it wasn’t being executed properly and do it themselves, making a mockery of any kind of organised system of laws in the country. In order for federalism to actually mean anything there has the federal Executive has to decide how to execute the laws that Congress pass and those laws and decisions have to override inconsistent actions of the States. Reading the Constitution in the way suggested by some results in absurdity. ....

It would be ludicrous if a State could pass a law, as Arizona has done, which appears to conform to federal law, but actually attempts to enforce that law in its own way, with additional penalties, or with skewed priorities.

Dilan provides a great summary of the interests in question:

1. I think that the status quo on immigration is a tacit compromise between business interests, the Mexican government, and Hispanic groups on the one hand and labor unions and nativist groups on the other, and that the Constitution permits such tacit compromises. It in no way dishonors his oath of office; however, if it did, the remedy is to impeach.

2. The President “refuses to enforce US law” all the time, if you mean exercises his discretion (through the Justice Department and administrative agencies) to decline to prosecute or bring enforcement actions against people or entities who violate it. Again, though, if in a particular case this seems improper, the remedy is impeachment. [Still, not bloody likely to occur.]

3. I don’t think letting illegal immigrants stay in the country in any way makes the US less sovereign. What sovereign is challenging us over any significant amount of our territory? What people don’t recognize the US as sovereign? What sovereign immunity has the US lost? This is overheated political rhetoric from anti-immigrant conservatives. Plenty of countries (1) have illegal immigration problems and (2) retain sovereignty.

4. As I said, Mexico obviously isn’t going to invade. But Mexican cooperation is crucial on several foreign policy issues, including terrorism, drug trafficking, free trade, hemispheric cooperation, and, yes, controlling migrant flows. If the President determines that the best way to secure such cooperation is not to be draconian in enforcement of immigration law, that is precisely the type of foreign policy judgment that it is his right to make. The Constitution doesn’t grant the 50 states the power to make 50 junior foreign policies that conflict with Presidential determinations, or to blithely declare that whatever actions they take that piss a neighbor off actually have no effect on foreign policy.

There remains some debate over the plenary power given to the federal government over the issue of immigration, but at least in this context, I think the Commerce Clause is a primary source. The ruling of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, in particular, aspects of Justice Black's concurrence, provides some useful information in this context. I will provide some excerpts that show the breadth of the power, the rightful control by the feds when the matter is beyond the concern of a single state and how a system as a whole justifies a policy even if looking at a few stray individual cases might suggest differently. Some citations are removed:

It requires no novel or strained interpretation of the Commerce Clause to sustain Title II as applied in either of these cases. At least since Gibbons v. Ogden, decided in 1824 in an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, it has been uniformly accepted that the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States is plenary, "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." Nor is "Commerce" as used in the Commerce Clause to be limited to a narrow, technical concept. It includes not only, as Congress has enumerated in the Act, "travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication," but also all other unitary transactions and activities that take place in more States than one. That some parts or segments of such unitary transactions may take place only in one State cannot, of course, take from Congress its plenary power to regulate them in the national interest. The facilities and instrumentalities used to carry on this commerce, such as railroads, truck lines ships, rivers, and even highways, are also subject to congressional regulation so far as is necessary to keep interstate traffic upon fair and equal terms.

Furthermore, it has long been held that the Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 18, adds to the commerce power of Congress the power to regulate local instrumentalities operating within a single State if their activities burden the flow of commerce among the States. ....

But, in deciding the constitutional power of Congress in cases like the two before us, we do not consider the effect on interstate commerce of only one isolated, individual, local event, without regard to the fact that this single local event, when added to many others of a similar nature, may impose a burden on interstate commerce by reducing its volume or distorting its flow. ....

"The genius and character of the whole government seem to be that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally, but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere for the purpose of executing some of the General powers of the Government." Gibbons v. Ogden.

The broad use of "commerce," back to the days of CJ Marshall, underlines how immigration fits in, particularly "travel" (another comment cites a case where states were stopped from blocking travel given it burdened commerce) and "trade," including (as Dilan notes) the relation it has to other countries. The fact some stray person might come here to see a baseball game or the like does not remove the fact that regulation of immigrants in this context has a primary effect on commerce. As noted, the fact that "some part" might affect the state itself does not remove the plenary power because the overall scheme affects the nation as a whole. This makes sense since "the external concerns of the nation" reasonably are the concern of the nation, not individual segments therein acting perhaps in competing ways.

Along with the "necessary and proper" clause, also cited by Justice Black, federal regulation of immigration can usually be easily fit in the commerce power, along with other assists such as the treaty power. This is often how it was so regulated in the 19th Century as well. The lawsuit seems on solid ground.*

---

* Republicans are having a bit of a disconnect since the judge has received their support in the past. This includes -- how surprising -- selective use of "activism":

"She didn't overturn the law," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the second highest ranking Republican in the Senate. "She said that portions of it -- the bulk of it -- needed to be enjoined because of her view that it was pre-empted by federal law because it created undue additional burdens on the federal government. This judge is not an activist judge. She had to make a decision. She made a decision. I don't happen to agree with it, but she's not an activist." ...

"I don't know if it's so much judicial activism as it is a failure to understand the federal government's responsibility when they don't carry out their responsibility then the states have to do it for themselves as a matter of security," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

Very clarifying. I jest. McCain's statement too. What other federal functions can states do if the federal government (in his opinion) doesn't carry out "their responsibility," I wonder. Let's see. Congress has various enumerated powers. If they don't properly carry them out in a way some state thinks burdens their interests, individual states have the power to step in, even when their actions affect "external concerns of the nation."

Yes, unlike some, I'm glad this guy isn't President.

Knuckleballer to the rescue

They were right to keep Niese, even with Oswalt being offered, since team needs another pitcher, not just a replacement for a rising star. R.A. Dickey went 8.1 innings on three days rest, which works better without the losing that came before it. Look forward, huh?

Mets Won Yesterday, So No Win From Santana

The team did pick him up after he had a real lousy first inning, but they still lost in extras, though no Perez appearance this time. Anyone who thinks coming back from six down is still a moral victory is thinking like a loser. As this team still is.

Some Viewing

Friday Nights Lights (via IMDB -- has five episodes so far from this season) was a good touch since it has been an iffy week on media. Two books on interesting subject matter (including polygamy) just was written in a way that I could not handle. One was too graduate school, the other too flowery in a fashion. Annoying. I have read relatively little fiction over the years in part since I generally have trouble finding a style of it I like. Nonfiction can be like that too.

Netflix was not totally ideal either. The Vicar of Dibley second series and final two episodes were a mixed bag. Overall liked the first series about the first female vicar to a small English town, first seeing a bit on PBS (and not the main channel), later seeing the first six episodes on a DVD from the library. Amusing show, but one comment somewhere was correct: it got a bit too focused on the main character and at times went for the cheap joke. Often the most charming part was the final bit after the credits, where the vicar tells a joke to her "verger," who never gets it. By chance, the profane farmer character once guest starred on Doc Martin. These shows eventually always run together.

I just saw a good movie that I first watched in a charming theater downtown near a bridge. The Sticky Fingers of Time (there are five fingers you see -- the past, present, future, what might have been and might still be), the director of which later making another film I later watched. IMDB will tell you what one. Creative indie this one is with a perfect sense of style and character. And, soy milk isn't that bad. You just need to get the right kind.

Time passes. The theater is no longer there, nor the time. The 1990s are no more.

Sherrod Lessons

John Stuart Mill once said that even glaring error should be allowed to be spoken, not criminalized that is, because truth can come with collision from error. This doesn't mean we want to encourage such error, but it's likely to come all the same. And, like in the Shirley Sherrod case, we better try to learn something from it. Including all the stuff that it brings to light.

Lots of stuff, it seems. The perils of being weak-kneed and knee-jerk in particular, especially when people with stated desires to destroy the left [as a clip on Jon Stewart showed], even if it requires fraudulently edited video to do it. Fool me once .... Did not we learn from the ACORN debacle, shown to be filled with crap as well?

But, the strength and insight of the woman herself was inspiring, especially those who learn about her life story. In a different context, Sherrod (and the white farmers who spoke out for her -- farmers who some might at first glance stereotypically say look like those likely to be racists) sounds like someone President Obama would provide as a symbol.

The story also brought to light a little known federal lawsuit:

Five months after President Obama announced a $1.25 billion settlement for black farmers who faced overt discrimination by the USDA in the eighties and nineties -- and several days after the Sherrod case brought the issue up again -- Congress again refused to authorize the money.

A "settlement" underlines that the courts aren't the only place we go to obtain justice. It also shows that even after discrimination is found, it takes the other branches to deal with the situation, which has not been fully accomplished -- this thing has been going on since the 1990s -- here.

Those who have read/listened to more than a couple minutes of her speech also learned a bit about the history of racism on the ground. Again, Sherrod knows something about that given her father (a black farmer) was killed by a white person when she was a girl, the grand jury refused to indict. It helped her decide to stay and work for justice; it is in that context that she then noted that eventually she learned it is about helping poor people of all races. It is something like if someone was raped, pledges to work for the rights of women, but finds out some college frat boy had his rights violated by the policies of the college and -- though she isn't really interested at first -- helps him.

Sherrod also spoke about the history of law enforcement in the state, including two racists sheriffs, one the subject of a major civil rights case back in the 1940s.* We too often forget that such perversion of the role of the government was not that long ago, putting aside that it still occurs in certain contexts to this day. This led to some discussion of lynching, including historical attempts (in part blocked by filibustering) to address it on the federal level. As the links suggest, this led to some attempts to call her a "liar" or the like for her use of the term "lynch," but also that (as with her treatment as a whole) even some natural critics (including people at American Spectator) think the people went too far here.

Does that mean the likes of Andrew Breitbart will be shown as persona non grata by them? It is a long process -- doesn't take too many dissenters, as shown by Republicans for Obama in '08, for some progress to be made. Anyways, hopefully some lessons will be learned here.

---

* The SC was closely divided in part because the use of federal civil rights laws were still fairly novel; the opinion started:

This case involves a shocking and revolting episode in law enforcement. Petitioner Screws was sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. He enlisted the assistance of petitioner Jones, a policeman, and petitioner Kelley, a special deputy, in arresting Robert Hall, a citizen of the United States and of Georgia. The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the court house. As Hall alighted from the car at the court house square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the [325 U.S. 91, 93] car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the court house yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor dying. An ambulance was called and Hall was removed to a hospital where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall and had threatened to 'get' him.

Prayer

And Also: I watched Friday Nights Lights a few weeks ago for the first time because of an abortion themed episode, but after watching a few more episodes, this might be a keeper. Knock on wood. Good writing and performances does the trick.

In answer to a Slate Explainer column, I noted:

For one, Catholics, who unlike Protestants believe in purgatory, think prayer helps speed the transition from limbo to heaven.

Why is this different from helping people go into heaven itself? That is, under the logic of the belief structure? From personal experience, I also wonder how many Catholics truly believe in purgatory or limbo these days.

Under that logic, when a Christian prays for someone who has died, he is also praying for himself. He therefore brings himself closer to God and closer to salvation.

This seems the most logical path. For instance, a prayer of thanksgiving recognizes one's blessings and helps one remain humble about them. A prayer in honor of someone who died, including to obtain solace and strength, also is personal and humble. Like chanting, yoga, mediation and other devices, prayer also is a means to center onself and reach what many see as "sacred," a special place that often but need not solely be in some fashion ultimately about a God-type being. It also might be a means to be right with nature. This makes it a type of "religious" experience in my eyes.

Prayer is personal as well as having a communal aspect. A group of people praying can be like any other group -- each person on their own is one thing, as a group, there is a certain power. It also can be important to know people are praying for you. Maybe, this even works while in limbo? Anyway, just like someone appreciates when they know a person is thinking about them, knowing a person is praying for you can help. To the degree that well being is in part mental, this also might have some value when you are sick. Someone alone, for instance, might have a harder time of it even if they have the same disease, the same medical resources.

Of course, some faiths -- especially in mythology -- believe that supernatural beings are listening, and do care if many people are appealing to them through prayer.

---

* The photo has the woman appearing to hold a rosary. Such items can serve as a means of focusing yourself. It is something like the idols of the old, sometimes ridiculed as if people were praying to stones. But, many didn't think the idols were gods themselves, but means to focus oneself to a supernatural that humans could not themselves see.

Some thoughts on Wikileaks

And Also: Prof. Levinson talks about filibusters and judicial nominations, leading some thoughts from you know who, including a link to a criticism of Sen. Graham's theory on judicial nominees.

Secrecy News last month provided this fairly negative take on Wikileaks as an irresponsible organization with self-promotion tendencies. Given the critic's organization is in place to promote openness, the essay not surprisingly resulted in some negative responses. And, I think it was a too heavy-handed attempt (one shared by some journalists who have talked about the organization, if not in so negative of a light) for balance. Are they to blame that their leaks were not taken as seriously as others? Yes, the "collateral murder" label on that now infamous video was a bad piece of misguided commentary.

The MSM has its share of excesses all the same, including involving fairly unimportant individuals and revelations that needlessly violate privacy. The criticism is bit too much like this one by television analysts against "anonymous bloggers," which btw shows that similar complaints can be made on the Internet as a whole. The material could and would be leaked in various ways; Wikileaks just provides a platform. And, it does limit itself, such as only releasing lower level "secret" documents, not truly top secret stuff (as noted by the founder in press conference aired on C-SPAN) and redacting names (as noted by a guest on Rachel Maddow, well guest hosted by Chris Hayes) last night.

The increase of the use of "secrecy" (both the label and the selective secrecy of information that still is leaked when deemed fit, including by semi-official sanction) recalls Justice Stewart's opinion in the Pentagon Papers case. He probably relied to much on the good graces of the executive, but his words are ever more true:

I should suppose that moral, political, and practical considerations would dictate that a very first principle of that wisdom would be an insistence upon avoiding secrecy for its own sake. For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. I should suppose, in short, that the hallmark of a truly effective internal security system would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained.

Like prosecutorial discretion, the reality of leaks provide a safeguard to excessive secrecy and the resulting dangers. As Justice Douglas noted in the same case:

Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions, there should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate.

What was the net result from the release of the papers? It is hard to provide a concrete answer, I think, it more of a symbolic move along with one with clear but somewhat inchoate consequences. Same here. There is lots of coverage on the matter as touched upon above (see also, Democracy Now!) that provides the breadth of the material covered and the possible consequences. But, two important functions are to provide a more concrete sense of what is going on (use of certain incidents, events and so forth as compared to general themes) and to serve as a continuing reminder of them. The people "in the know" might be aware, but how it is covered is important. It is like any problem: sometimes, we can in effect accept it as a given, something we rather not really think about.

The resources provided, even if it is unclear how many people will wade into them, is therefore important. As to the danger of unregulated leaks, that is a concern, but it is one that will result in any case in the modern landscape. And, to the degree Wikileaks wants to be taken seriously -- and this seems to be true -- as someone to be taken seriously, some "due diligence" will be done. If leaks will occur, some sort of medium -- even one rather free form -- is likely better than nothing.

And, lest we forget, the recent document drop was made to major publications, who can choose what to do with them. As with the original Pentagon Papers, their actions are important though. Daniel Ellsberg tried to get the attention of Congress before releasing things to the media. These days, there is a question if the media is doing their "due diligence."

We're Wrong, but don't dare get mad at us!

This is f-ed up. The Mets later won because an umpire (again) blew a call. So, I guess there is some cosmic balance and all, but GIVE ME A BREAK. Why the hell are you suspending him for a game? What stupidity. Why not suspend one of these moronic umpires?